Ah, I see. But why wouldn't we? We're Catholic after all. This is what I do not get with Eastern Catholics, and I admit I got caught up in this. We're trying to be like the Orthodox in terms of our theology on the Papacy (or lack of it for the Orthodox). But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts. If we don't, then we should be Orthodox. It is as simple as that.

And they are heresies. It is as simple as that.

And it is the opposite for Catholics. That is why I said Eastern Catholics shouldn't believe what the Orthodox do about the Papacy, otherwise they would be heretics from the Catholic point of view.

Yes, for a variety of reasons:for one, they are all in schism from their Mother Churches, i.e. the Orthodox, with whom they would have to deal with individually. For instance, the UGCC is in schism (or rather heresy, but we'll leave that aside for the point at hand) from the Patriarchate of Moscow. On the one hand the PoM has to speak with the Vatican with the other Orthodox Churches present, as no separate deal can be made with the Vatican that all 14 other Churches do not agree with. On the other hand, regarding the UGCC, it has to deal with the PoM alone on its status: the Patriarchate of Antioch, for instance, has no business or concern with the UGCC beyond what it pursues in common with Moscow with the Vatican. Conversely, Antioch would deal with the Melkites, Maronites and Syriacs now in submission to the Vatican.

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

I am curious as to what heresy you are talking about regarding the UGCC? Is it her claim to be a Patriarchate?

Ah, I see. But why wouldn't we? We're Catholic after all. This is what I do not get with Eastern Catholics, and I admit I got caught up in this. We're trying to be like the Orthodox in terms of our theology on the Papacy (or lack of it for the Orthodox). But the fact that we're Catholics we should be accepting these dogmas with no ifs and buts. If we don't, then we should be Orthodox. It is as simple as that.

Or one can believe that neither the Latin nor the Orthodox have it quite right about the Papacy. Not so simple.

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

Which brings up another issue: if the "Byzantine Catholics" have to be represented at the Vatican-Orthodox talks, don't the Armenian, Coptic, Syriac "sui juris churches" with which the Vatican and the Byzantines are in communion, have to be represented as well?

Yes, but there is a seperate dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox.

Good point. The Byzantine Catholics have just as much right to be at the dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox, as the Armenian Catholics et al have to be at the dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox.